Wikipedia:Peer review/Departures (film)/archive1

Departures (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we'd like to bring this article to FAC in the next couple months and, since it's a bit out of our regular editing areas, we'd like feedback regarding grammar and accessibility (and comprehensiveness, if anyone's willing).

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt comments

Very interesting.

Lede

• I think you need a clearer transition between the fiction at the end of the first paragraph and the real life of the second.

• Worked it over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to mention the prejudice in both the first and second paragraphs?

• One as part of the plot, one in the real world context. (Several reviewers, like A.O. Scott, appear to have had trouble understanding that the treatment of Daigo was actually rather positive compared to how he would have been treated in RL). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "encoffining ceremony" Link? I see there is one in the body

• Linked to Wiktionary. I'm tempted to write an article about the nokan, but we don't have one yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot

• the former classmate is described at the second mention not the first. Possibly at the first mention, "the mother of Daigo's former classmate", it can be "the mother of a former classmate of Daigo"
• "After Mika discovers a training DVD in which Daigo plays a corpse, he refuses to quit the "disgusting profession" and she returns to her parents' home in Tokyo." Perhaps "Daigo refuses to quit, even after Mika discovers a training DVD in which he plays a corpse, and she leaves him to return to her parents' home in Tokyo". Her departure is caused by two things, her discovery and his refusal. They should both be on the same side of the sentence, if you understand me.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "avoid his family" Yamashita's?

• Yes. Tried reworking, but maybe a little awkward. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "of the Yamashita family and Mika" a "both" could usefully be tossed in here.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "After coming into contact with the dead individuals must cleanse themselves" I think a comma after "dead" is needed.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is the continuing discrimination against burakumin worth mentioning?

• Added a clause. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "eight-tenths" I would express as a percentage, as the other stats in the paragraph are.

• Per the hidden note, it's not an exact fraction; Curly Turkey could probably explain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess "about 80%" would be okay, but the source gives "eight-tenths"—I'd assume it's rounded, especially as it's given as recent trends rather than a particular number from a particular year. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Conception

• "affinity with film world" needs a "the". "mysteriousness" is not that common a word, is there a more familiar term that might express what is being said? Ditto "greenlit". (my autocorrect kept arguing with me about it)

• Done. How is "a sense of mystery and near-eroticism"? As for greenlit, Green-light is the industry term. I'll try using a hyphen, though personally I don't think that's proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "exploitation pink film genre" I imagine the first word should be "exploitative". I wonder if that's POV?

• Exploitation film is a genre. That being said, I agree exploitation pink film reads like verbal diarrhea, and we can use pink film to get the point across (there's a link, after all).

• "Aoki rejected having his name and book title used in the film" possibly "Aoki refused to allow his name and that of his book to be used in the film"

• Reworked... I agree, Rejected isn't the best word here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "because of his role as a nōkanshi" perhaps "job", not role

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Aoki put particular emphasis on the "light" seen when one perceived the integration of life and death" this, perhaps, should be moved up to where there is discussion of Aoki's refusal.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• The cello comment seems misplaced, as it is not a difference between the book and the film, given that most books lack cello orchestration.
• "moving the "letter-stone" from a subplot to a main motif," perhaps "making the "letter-stone" a much larger part of the plot" or similar.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "reconcile with his late father" well, I'm not sure that "reconcile" is the right word. Perhaps "forgive"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Casting

• "practising on his manager" his manager as a professional actor, or the mortician?

• Curly Turkey added that, so he can confirm whether its explicit, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't his manager as an actor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Motoki practised the nōkan procedure on his manager as the corpse. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "who could lay as still" lay or lie?

• Lie. *doh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Filming

• " After Sakata was decided on," I think you need to make clear that the town is meant here.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "but filming was done in Yamagata; this was largely because the national Nōkan Association, headquartered in Hokkaido, had a branch office in Sakata" I'm not sure that the logic of this is clear.

• Curly, could you get this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "between the mid-Meiji and Taishō periods." I think a year range in parentheses would be needed here to save the reader needless clicks.

• Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "aged building". I'm not familiar with this expression. Maybe "period building"?

• I don't think period is correct, as this wasn't a period piece. Old has negative connotations as well. Curly, any ideas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "an international release of the film was intended; as English is considered a key language in international film festivals, English subtitles were added to these releases." Release/releases. I suspect that it wasn't just the film festivals.

• "added to these releases" --> prepared. No, not just for film festivals, but even the theatrical releases in the US didn't have dubs (just subtitles). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Themes

• " it and its importance" "them and their importance"

• First it to "the ceremony"

• " transience of life; by understanding this transience, " one or the other should be changed. Also, you describe this review in both the present and past tenses.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "which permeated the film" I think for consistency, this should be present tense.

• "The film explains that," is the one that's out of place. Hmm... reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Domestic reviews

• The second sentence has "Takita" three times, including twice in close succession.

• Reworked one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "hakamairi" ?

• "Grave-side visits". Curly, could you prepare a footnote like we did for nokanshi? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you think what I've done is sufficient? Does it need more detail? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Perfect for a footnote. We could probably make an article some time, but not right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "so-Japanese ... so clearly" so much so.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• What determines whether critics have links to the Japanese versions of their names?

• Whether or not the Japanese Wikipedia has articles on them . If an article were to be written on the English Wikipedia, the redlink would automatically disappear (as happened with the {{ill|ja|Sakata Minato-za|酒田港座}} Sakata Minato-za). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• The final paragraph's first sentence has three "and" clauses.

• Split. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

International

• ""mug[ing] for the camera"" mugging?

• Dur. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "in the The New York Times" slice the lower case "the"

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cultural impact

• Not certain about the name of the section, can a five year old film have had cultural impact yet?

• Perhaps not a deep seated one, but the revival of a seven-year-closed movie theatre, a 200k strong tourist industry, an increased visibility of nokan, a new academy for those interested in the ceremony... certainly a short-term cultural impact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• "its win at the Academy Awards was the first for a Japanese film since the Best Foreign Language Film category was created in 1956" We know. You've told us much of this. I suggest most of this be merged further up and that it simply be stated that the first Japanese film to win Best FL Film was big news there.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notes

• " Also called a morticians " singular.

Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the peer review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Excellent article. Very few comments – mere drafting points:

• General
  • If, as it appears, you are using BrEng, you are too fond of the anarthrous nominal premodifier, which is acceptable in American usage but not in British: "with aggregator Rotten Tomatoes", "Veteran actor Tsutomu Yamazaki", "Film critic Yūichi Maeda", "Reviewer Takurō Yamaguchi" and so on. Our tabloid papers and websites do it, but scrupulous English writers don't: they add the definite article before the title: "with the aggregator Rotten Tomatoes", "The veteran actor Tsutomu Yamazaki", "The film critic Yūichi Maeda", "The reviewer Takurō Yamaguchi" etc. Up to you, naturally, and nobody could so object to the construction as to oppose FA on the strength of it.
    • Canadian English, I believe, accepts it (for this one, since we're both Canadians [small world, eh?], we decided to go maple leaf). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Lead
  • "but due to Japanese prejudices" – if BrEng, then "owing to" or (better still) "because of".
    • Went with Because of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Plot
  • "unsavory" – if BrEng, then "unsavoury"
    • I believe unsavoury is correct in CadEng (source), so changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Conception and preproduction
  • "Departures was green-lit by Toshiaki Nakazawa" – WP:IDIOM – better just approved or agreed or some such.
    • Two reviews in a row, two issues with green-lit. Gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Casting
  • If BrEng, then "envisaged" rather than "envisioned" in the third sentence.
    • I'm not sure which one is correct in CadEng, so went with "planned". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "corpses from moving" – I don't know that the blue link to "corpsing" is all that helpful here.
    • I think I'd stick with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Filming and post-production
  • "three-story" – "three-storey" is more usual in BrEng, though "story" is perfectly acceptable if you prefer to stick with it.
    • Done, per storey — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Style
  • Block quote – the MoS bids us eschew quotation marks round block quotes. MOS:Blockquote
    • Removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "an unexpected compliment to the theme of death" – I suspect from the context this should be "complement" rather than "compliment", but I'm quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
    • You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Domestic reviews
  • Third para – "Departures's two leads" – I'm usually a stickler for ess-apostrophe-ess in possessives of names ending in s, but even I boggle a bit at Departures's: perhaps just ess-apostrophe? Later in the para: "to it having clearly depicted Japanese views" – strictly speaking you need a gerund here: "to it's having…" I should add that this is an old-fashioned view, and many young writers would be quite unaware of this grammatical point.
    • Replaced the name of the film with a simple "the". Went with "its clear depiction of Japanese views on life and death."
• Impact
  • "a job creation program" – in BrEng a computer program, but any other sort is a programme.
    • I believe in CadEng it's "program" (such as with the UoT's English Language Program and the text at American and British English spelling differences) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • You'll find in Canada that sometimes both American and British spellings are accepted—"program(me)" is one of those cases, though "program" is far more prevalent (though you'll find weirdos like a commenter here who claim the opposite). The CBC turns up 3570 hits for "programme" and 9430 hits for "program". The Gobe and Mail gives 3777 for "programme" and 114484 for "program". The Toronto Star gives 348 for "programme" and 37907 for "program". Obviously both are used, and obviously one is far more prevalent. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me. A most interesting article and a pleasure to review. (You are very good for me – getting me out of my familiar territory and into the big wide world now and then.) Please let me know when Departures arrives at FAC. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! Always glad to take you out of the UK every once in a while, even if it's just via the web. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Very interesting article, and nicely put together (and a damned sight longer than most of your articles Crisco!). I'll take your word for the spelling, construction and grammar of CanEng, and feel free to educate me otherwise if I suggest something wrong for that variant.

• What can I say, there are still people alive who have actually seen this film. (And besides, Curly did about half of it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco thought he could pull off another quick one—then we unearthed an entire Departures industry ;) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not that quick! I was thinking... 30k, max. Little did we know... 94 awards! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "the film opened in Japan and went on to win the Japan Academy Prize for Picture of the Year and become the year's highest-grossing domestic film in Japan.": we get the message it's connected to Japan!
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cultural background

• "dressing the deceased dressed in white" ¿que?
  • D'oh! My fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Always scares me how many things several pairs of eyes combined spot!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Conception and preproduction

• "Both feature a protagonist who endures uneasiness and prejudice because of his job as a nōkanshi,[21] undergoes personal growth as a result of his experiences and, confronted with death, finds new meaning in life.[24]" It may be worth re-working this a little, as I had to read it a few times before its sense came out to me properly.
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More to follow soonest. – SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Style

• "Ebert suggested may be to mask the audience's fears": should this be "may be used to mask..."?

• Don't think it's quite necessary, but I guess it's okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Themes

• "afterlife is not given much discussion.[68] he considered this": capital H, if the full stop is meant: and who is "he"? (Ebert, Ozu or Itama?)

• Capitalized. He = Ebert. Ozu and Itami are in parentheticals and thus not considered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• "However, the film touches..." I'd avoid starting the sentence with "however": it's a red rag to some reviewers (who over-react on it's use, IMO, but may be worth avoiding their ire)
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• "although the ceremony was traditionally completed by the family of the deceased, a decreased interest in it..." It may be the heat, but I'm struggling to understand this one (and deceased – deceased could be tightened too)
  • How's this? (I struggle to understand how London could be "hot"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • After spending sixteen years in a subtropical zone, I struggle to understand what my dad means by "humid" in a GTA context. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

• Rancid Tomatoes One of my huge bug-bears here, so excuse me while I go into rant mode for a while about the turgid and fetid review aggregators.

Because of what this bunch of parasites do, I'm not sure we can refer to an "approval rating": the critics do no such thing. The critics write well-balanced reviews of several hundred words of light and shade, carefully balancing their opinions and choosing their words with thought and care. The jack-booted hordes from RT slap a percentage figure on the review, and crassly judge the review to be "fresh" or "rotten". Come the day of the revolution I'd have the website electronically napalmed and all mention removed from Wikipedia. Unfortunately I'm not a dictator (yet), but in the meantime I think it behoves us to be circumspect in how we present their information. Could I suggest that the sentence be tweaked to state "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes sampled 102 reviewers and judged 81% of them to be positive", which is a little more descriptive of what they do? (And sorry – rant now over!)

• Reworked.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More to follow soonest – SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Having read through the remainder, nothing more to follow, as I think you've done a good job. Please drop me a note when you come to FAC and I'll be happy to comment appropriately there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Will do! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)